A critical evaluation of American drone strikes in Pakistan: legality, legitimacy and prudence

Abstract

This article critically evaluates the American counterterrorism strategy of carrying out drone strikes in the tribal areas of Pakistan to enquire whether undertaking these actions could be described as a responsible policy. The analytical framework is introduced through the idea that, being a great power, the United States has a responsibility to act legally, legitimately and prudently. This framework is then applied to the current case study. The analysis concludes that it is not possible to classify the said policy as a responsible one.

Keywords:

• Pakistan
• drone
• great power responsibility
• legality
• legitimacy
• prudence

Acknowledgements

The author is thankful to three anonymous reviewers of this article for their helpful comments and feedback. Thanks are also due to Dr James Worrall.

Notes

1. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer of this article for this point.

2. It includes strikes started in 2004 until 19 August 2011 (see Roggio and Mayer 2011).

3. According to the US Department of Defense, a preemptive action is ‘an attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent’, while a preventive attack is ‘initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk’ (quoted in Kroning 2003).

4. The Colombian attack took place in March 2008, whereas Turkey has attacked Northern Iraq on numerous occasions (see Waisberg 2009, pp. 477, 482).

5. For details of the work conducted by that panel see UN Report (2004).

6. For more on the issue of mistaken identity in targeted killings, see Gross (2009, p. 119).

7. For details see ‘Pashtunawali/Pashtuanwaali’, The Global Security,: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/pashtunwali.htm.

8. The Pakistani ambassador to the United States quoted in Harrison (2007). See also Jones (2009, p. xxviii).